Hussein v. Minnesota

Background

Gamada Ahmed Hussein, representing himself, sued Minnesota and unnamed “John Does.” He sought declaratory, injunctive, and monetary relief. Hussein alleged that state and local law-enforcement personnel, acting with the Central Intelligence Agency and Federal Bureau of Investigation, surveilled, tortured, oppressed, harassed, discriminated against, intimidated, and defamed him because of his race, religion, skin color, ethnicity, alienage, ancestry, or national origin. He also alleged that the State controlled his mind and body through drugs, witchcraft, and implanted technology, poisoned him, and attempted to assassinate him.

Hussein’s complaint asserted constitutional claims, claims under federal civil-rights statutes, claims under several other federal statutes, and state-law tort claims. Although the complaint referred to governors, attorneys general, police departments, sheriffs, state troopers, undercover agents, and federal agencies, Hussein did not identify individual defendants by name.

Minnesota’s Motion to Dismiss

The State moved to dismiss based on Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity, failure to state a claim, and improper service. The court addressed each ground.

Sovereign immunity. Sovereign immunity generally prevents a person from suing a state in federal court unless the state consents or Congress validly removes that protection. The court held that Minnesota had not waived its immunity for Hussein’s constitutional claims or claims under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985. The court therefore dismissed Counts I, III–VI, XII, and XVI for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction.

The court also held that Minnesota’s immunity barred Hussein’s claims under the Freedom of Information Act, the Privacy Act, the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act, and the federal criminal statute prohibiting theft of mail. It dismissed Counts II, VII, XIV, and XV. The court further held that the Minnesota Tort Claims Act did not waive the State’s immunity from suit in federal court and dismissed Counts VIII–XI and XIII.

Failure to state a claim. The court separately held that the complaint failed to state claims for relief. It explained that §§ 1981, 1983, and 1985 allow claims against “persons,” and Minnesota is not a person subject to liability under §§ 1983 or 1985. Hussein also had not identified individuals responsible for the alleged constitutional violations.

The court held that the Freedom of Information Act and Privacy Act did not provide a basis for claims against Minnesota because those statutes concern federal government agencies. It also held that the theft-of-mail statute and the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act did not create a private right of action, meaning a private person could not use those statutes to bring a lawsuit for damages or other relief. Finally, the court held that Hussein’s state-law tort allegations did not provide enough non-speculative facts to state a claim.

Service of Process

The court also ruled that Hussein had not properly served Minnesota. Under the applicable rules, service on the State required delivery of the summons and complaint to the attorney general, a deputy attorney general, or an assistant attorney general. The court found no evidence that Minnesota had agreed to service by email and concluded that Hussein’s apparent email and in-person attempts did not satisfy the service requirements. Because the summons and complaint were not properly served, the court held that it lacked personal jurisdiction over Minnesota.

Preliminary Injunction

Hussein moved for a preliminary injunction, which is temporary court-ordered relief before a final decision. The court considered the required factors, including likely irreparable harm, the balance of harms, the public interest, and the likelihood of success. Because the court had concluded that Hussein would not succeed on the merits, it denied the motions for a preliminary injunction.

Disposition

The court ordered that Minnesota’s motion to dismiss was granted, Hussein’s motions for a preliminary injunction were denied, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice. The court entered judgment accordingly.